Critical Examination of the Life Of St Paul by Boulanger

33 Pages·2021·0.36 MB·English

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Critical Examination of the Life of St. Paul, by
Boulanger

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Critical Examination of the Life of St. Paul

Author: Boulanger

Release Date: November 22, 2011 [EBook #38102]
Last Updated: March 25, 2019

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EXAMINATION OF THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL ***

Produced by David Widger

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE

LIFE OF ST. PAUL

By Boulanger

Translated From The French Of Boulanger

"Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad."

Acts, chap. 26, ver. 24.

1823

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL

CHAPTER I. Is the Conversion of St. Paul a proof in favour of the Christian Religion?

CHAPTER II. Opinions of the first Christians upon the Acts of the Apostles, and upon

the Epistles and Person of St. Paul.

CHAPTER III. Of the Authority of the Councils, of the Fathers of the Church, and of

Tradition

CHAPTER IV. Life of St. Paul, according to the Acts of the Apostles

CHAPTER V. St. Paul styles himself the Apostle of the Gentiles—Causes of his Success.

CHAPTER VI. Paul preaches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece

CHAPTER VII. Preaching of St. Paul at Corinth and Ephesus

CHAPTER VIII. The Apostle gets into embarrassments at Jerusalem, and is sent to

Rome

CHAPTER IX. Reflections on the Life and Character of St. Paul

CHAPTER X. Of the Enthusiasm of St. Paul

CHAPTER XI. Of the Disinterestedness of St. Paul

CHAPTER XII. Of the imperious Tone and political Views of St. Paul

CHAPTER XIII. Of the Humility, of St. Paul

CHAPTER XIV. Of the Zeal of St. Paul; Reflections on this Christian Virtue

CHAPTER XV. Of the Deceptions or Apostacy of St. Paul

CHAPTER XVI. St. Paul's Hypocrisy

CHAPTER XVII. St. Paul accused of Perjury, or the Author of the Acts of the Apostles,

convicted of Falsehood.

CHAPTER XVIII. Examination of St. Paul's Miracles

CHAPTER XIX. Analysis of the writings attributed to St. Paul

CHAPTER XX. Of Faith, in what this Virtue consists

CHAPTER XXI. Of the Holy Ghost, and Divine Inspiration

CHAPTER XXII. Of the Inspiration of the Prophets of the Old Testament

CHAPTER. XXIII. Of the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, or their Divine

Inspiration

CHAPTER XXIV. General reflections on the foundations of Christian Faith, and on the

Causes of Credulity

CONCLUSION.

INTRODUCTION.

EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO M. L. N.

Sir, In our last conversation you appeared to me, very much smitten with St. Paul and his works; you recommended me to reperuse

his writings; assuring me that I should there find arguments well calculated to shake incredulity and confirm a Christian in his faith.

Although the actions of this celebrated Apostle, related in the Acts, and his doctrine contained in his Epistles, were already perfectly

known to me, yet to conform myself to your desires, and give you proofs of my docility, I have again read those works, and I can
assure you that I have done it with the greatest attention. You will judge of that yourself, by the reflections I send you; they will at least
prove to you that I have read with attention. A superficial glance is only likely to deceive us or leave us in error. The passions and the
prejudices of men prevent them from examining with candour, and from their indolence they are often disgusted with the researches
necessary for discovering truth; that has also been with so much care veiled from their eyes: but it is in vain to cover it, its splendour will

sooner or later shine forth; the works of enthusiasm or imposture, will always end by betraying themselves. As for the rest, read and
judge. You will find, I think, at least, some reasons for abating a little from that high opinion, that prejudice gives us of the Apostle of
the Gentiles, and of the religious system of the Christians, of which St. Paul was evidently the true architect. I am not ignorant that it is
very difficult to undo at one blow the ideas to which the mind has been so long accustomed; but whatever may be your judgment it will
not alter the sentiments of friendship and attachment which are due to the goodness of your heart.

I am, &c, &c.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE

LIFE OF ST. PAUL

CHAPTER I. Is the Conversion of St. Paul a proof in

favour of the Christian Religion?

Many theologians would make us regard the miraculous conversion and apostleship of St. Paul as one of the strongest proofs of the

truth of Christianity. But in viewing the thing closely it appears that this conversion, far from proving any thing in favour of this religion,
invalidates the other proofs of it, in fact, our doctors continually assure us that the Christian religion draws its strongest proofs from the
prophecies of the Old Testament, whilst there is not in fact a single one of these prophecies that can be literally applied to the Messiah
of the Christians. St. Paul himself willing to make use of these oracles of the Jewish nation to prove the mission of Christ, is obliged to
distort them, and to seek in them a mystical, allegorical, and figurative sense. On the other side, how can these prophecies made by
Jews and addressed to Jews, serve as proofs of the doctrine of St. Paul, who had evidently formed the design of altering, or even of
destroying, the Jewish religion, in order to raise a new system on its ruins? Such being the state of things, what real connection, or what
relation, can there be between the religious system of the Jews, and that of St. Paul? For this Apostle to have had the right of making
use of the Jewish prophecies, it would have been necessary that he should have remained a Jew; his conversion to Christianity
evidently deprived him of the privilege of serving himself, by having recourse to the prophecies belonging to a religion that he had just
abandoned, and the ruin of which he meditated. True prophecies can only be found in a divine religion, and a religion truly divine, can
neither be altered, reformed, nor destroyed: God himself, if he is immutable, could not change it.

In fact, might not the Jews have said to St. Paul, "Apostate that you are! you believe in our prophecies, and you come to destroy the

religion founded upon the same prophecies. If you believe in our oracles, you are forced to believe that the religion which you have
quitted is a true religion and divinely inspired. If you say, that God has changed his mind, you are impious in pretending that God could
change, and was not sufficiently wise, to give at once to his people a perfect worship, and one which had no need of being reformed.
On the other side, do not the reiterated promises of the Most High, confirmed by paths to our fathers, assure us, that his alliance with
us should endure eternally? You are then an impostor, and, according to our law, we ought to exterminate you; seeing that Moses, our
divine legislator, orders us to put to death, whoever shall have the temerity to preach to us a new worship, even though he should
confirm his mission by prodigies. The God that you preach is not the God of our fathers: you say that Christ is his son; but we know
that God has no son. You pretend that this son, whom we have put to death as a false prophet, has risen from the dead, but Moses
has not spoken of the resurrection; thus your new God and your dogmas are contrary to our law, and consequently we ought to hold
them in abhorrence." In short these same Jews might have said to St. Paul: "You deceive yourself in saying, that you are the disciple of
Jesus, your Jesus was a Jew, during the whole of his life he was circumcised, he conformed himself to all the legal ordinances; he often
protested that he came to accomplish, and not to abolish the law; whilst you in contempt of the protestations of the Master, whose
Apostle you say you are, take the liberty of changing this holy law, of decrying it, of dispensing with its most essential ordinances."

Moreover the conversion of St. Paul strangely weakens the proof that the Christian religion draws from the miracles of Jesus Christ

and his Apostles. According to the evangelists themselves the Jews were not at all convinced by these miracles. The transcendant
prodigy of the resurrection of Christ, the wonders since wrought by some of his adherents did not contribute more to their conversion.
St. Paul believed nothing of them at first, he was a zealous persecutor of the first Christians to such a degree, that, according to the
Christians, nothing short of a new miracle, performed for him alone, was able to convert him; which proves to us that there was, at
least, a time when St. Paul did not give any credit to the wonders that the partisans of Jesus related at Jerusalem.

He needed a particular miracle to believe in those miracles, that we are obliged to believe in at the time in which we live, without

heaven operating any new prodigy to demonstrate to us the truth of them.

CHAPTER II. Opinions of the first Christians upon the
Acts of the Apostles, and upon the Epistles and Person

of St. Paul.

It is in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, that we find the details of his life and the system of his doctrine; but,

how can we be certain of the authenticity of these works, whilst we see many of the first Christians doubt and reject them as
apocryphal? We find, in fact, that from the earliest period of the church, entire sects of Christians, who believed that many of the
Epistles published under the name of this Apostle, were not really his. The Marcionites were confident that the gospels were filled with
falshoods, and Marcion, their head, pretended that his gospel was the only true one.

The Manicheans, who formed a very numerous sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false, all the New Testament,

and produced other writings, quite different, which they gave as authentic. The Corinthians, as well as the Marcionites, did not admit
the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites and the Severians did not adopt either the Acts or the Epistles of St. Paul. St. John
Chrysostom in a homily, which he has made upon the Acts, says, that in his time (that is to say, towards the end of the fourth century)
many men were ignorant not only of the name of the author, or of the collector of these Acts, but even did not know this work. The
Valentinians, as well as many other sects of Christians accused our scriptures of being filled with errors, imperfections, and
contradictions, and of being insufficient without the assistance of traditions; this is a fact that is attested to us by St. Irenæus. The
Ebionites or Nazarenes, who, as we shall soon see, were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, and regarded him as
an impostor and hypocrite.

It will not fail being said to us, that we ought not to rely on the testimony of heretics; but I shall reply, that in the matter in question,

their testimony is of the same weight as that of the orthodox, seeing that all the different sects consider themselves as orthodox, and
have treated their adversaries as heretics. How shall we unravel the truth if we do not hear both parties? By what signs shall we know
those on whom we ought to rely? Shall we cede the cause without examining their adversaries, to writers who utter to us falshoods
without number, who contradict each other, who are never agreed amongst themselves, and whose discordant writings are
nevertheless produced as proofs of what they advance? In any other subject such a conduct would seem to betray a partiality or even
insincerity: but in religious matters, every thing is fair, and there is no necessity of being so nice.

However that may be, it does not follow that because one sect has received or rejected a work, that the work itself is either true or

false; there cannot be otherwise than, a diversity of opinions between persons of different parties; their testimony ought to have equal
weight, until the partisans of one sect, have been convicted of being greater cheats and liars, than those of the other. If we pay no
regard to the authority of heretics, it is because they have not had sufficient power to enforce their opinions. It is power or weakness
which makes orthodoxians or heretics: the last are always those who have not power enough to make their opinions current.

What course shall we then pursue to discover on which side is the truth? An impartial man will no more expect to find it in one party

than in another, thus the testimony of the one can have no greater weight than that of the other in the eye of an unprejudiced man.

This granted, we cannot rely on the authority of Christian traditions which vary in all sects, and we shall be reduced to recur solely to

reason, especially when we find that the works, which are to-day regarded as authentic, have in other times been considered as
suppositious, or apocryphal, by some very ancient sects of Christians, and that the works and writings, then regarded as apocryphal,
have since been adopted as true.

It appears that in the ancient churches, they read at once the works that we now regard as true, and those that now-pass for

suppositious, in such sort, that there is reason to believe they were then held to possess equal claim to authenticity: it is, at least, very,
difficult to demonstrate the contrary in the present time. Some churches have attributed the same authority to false or doubtful writings
as to true.

The Roman Church to-day adopts as authentic and divinely inspired many books of the Bible, absolutely rejected by the

Protestants. How is it possible to decide which is the party that deceives itself?

By what right can we then affirm to-day that the works of St. Paul, formerly rejected by so many Christian sects, are authentic, that

is to say, truly belong to this Apostle? On the other hand, how can we attribute to divine inspiration writings filled with inconsistencies,
contradictions, mistakes, and false reasonings, in a word, which bear every character of delirium, of ignorance, and of fraud? I
acknowledge that those who want valid proofs, always do right to affirm the thing, with the tone of authority; but this tone proves
nothing, and always prejudices against those who take it. Nothing is more injurious to the interest of truth, than the arrogance of an
usurped authority. These are, however, the arms that are incessantly opposed to those who doubt of religion. It would seem that its
defenders have no other arguments than their pretences; it is easy to feel that these arguments are every thing, but convincing.

The Acts of the Apostles, adopted by the Ebionites or Nazarenes, relate amongst other things, that, "Paul was originally a Pagan,

that he came to Jerusalem where he dwelt for some time; that being desirous of marrying the daughter of the High Priest he became a
proselyte, and was circumcised; but not being able to obtain the woman he desired, he quarrelled with the Jews, began to write against
the circumcision, against the observation of the Sabbath, and against legal ordinances."

We know that the name of Nazarenes was the first which was given to the Christians. St. Epiphanius, from whom the preceding

passage is taken, says, "that they were thus named because of Jesus of Nazareth," of whom they were the first disciples. The Jews
called them Nazarenes from the Hebrew word Nozerim, which signifies one separated or excommunicated; again they designated them
under the name of Mineans, that is to say, heretics. They were also by contempt called Ebionites, which signifies poor, mendicant,
weak-minded. In fact, the Hebrew Ebion, means poor, miserable, and we know, that the first followers of Christ, were every thing but
opulent or intelligent men.

The first faithful, were Jews converted by Jesus himself, or by the most ancient Apostles, such as Peter, James, and John, who as

well as their master, lived in Judaism. These Apostles, disciples, and new converts, differed from the Jews in nothing but the belief in
Jesus Christ, whom they regarded as the Messiah predicted by the prophets; otherwise they believed themselves bound constantly to
observe the Mosaic law, persuaded that their Messiah was come to accomplish and not to destroy this law. In consequence of this,
they observed circumcision, the abstinence from certain meats, separation from the Gentiles, in a word, the Jewish rites and
ordinances.

Thus the first Apostles, and their adherents, were only Jews, persuaded that the Messiah was already come, and was going soon to

commence his reign, which made them hated and persecuted as schismatics or heretics by their fellow-citizens. St. Jerome informs us,
"that even down to his time, the Jews used to anathematize the Christians, under the name of Nazarenes, three times a day in their
synagogues."

All this evidently proves, that the Nazarenes, of Ebionites, were the first Christians, taught by the most considerable of the Apostles,

and that the first Christians were only reformed Jews; this is clearly the only idea we can form of Christianity, such as it was taught by
Jesus Christ himself.

How then comes it that since Jesus, Christianity has been so separated from Judaism? a slight attention will prove to us that this is

owing to St. Paul. Repulsed by the Jews, or perhaps desirous of playing a more important part, we see him separate himself from his
brethren of Jerusalem, and undertake the conversion of the Gentiles, for whom the Jews entertained no sentiment but horror.
Encouraged by his first successes and wishing to extend them, he dispensed the Pagans from the painful ceremony of circumcision; he
declared that the law of Moses, was only a law of servitude, from which Jesus was come to free mankind; he pretended that all the old
law was merely the emblem and figure of the new; he announced himself as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and leaving Peter and the other
Nazarenes to preach the gospel of circumcision, he preached his own gospel, which he himself called the gospel of uncircumcision: in a
word, he made a divorce with the Jewish laws, to which his apostolic brethren believed they ought to hold themselves attached, at
least, in most respects.

The conduct of Paul, must naturally have displeased his seniors in the Apostleship, but fear appears to have deter mined them to

cede, at least for a time, to our missionary who had already made a considerable party. Nevertheless the Acts of the Apostles and the
writings of Paul, prove to us his quarrels with his brethren, who, according to appearances, never viewed with a friendly eye, his
enterprizes and innovations. Moreover, Eusebius and St. Epiphanius inform us, that our Apostle was regarded as an apostate, an
impostor, and an enemy by the Ebionites, that is to say, by the first faithful. But St. Paul's party having in the end prevailed, the Jewish
law was entirely banished from Christianity, and the Ebionites, or Nazarenes, though of more ancient date and though formed by Christ
and his first apostles were declared heretics.

It is proper to remark in this place that these Ebionites, or first Christians, believed that Jesus was but a man, as much on the side of

his father as on that of his mother, that is to say, the son of Joseph and Mary; but that he was a wise, just, and excellent person, thus
meriting the appellation of the son of God, because of his holy life and good qualities whence we see that the first Christians were as
well as the first Apostles, true Socinians. But St. Paul to give, without doubt, more lustre to his ministry, and his adherents after him,
willing to extol the holiness of their religion, made a God of Jesus, a dogma which it is no more permitted to doubt, especially since the
partizans of Paul have become more numerous, and stronger than those of St. Peter and the other Nazarenes, or Jewish founders of
primitive Christianity, which thus totally changed its face as to its capital dogmas.

Having thus become masters of the field of battle, Paul, his adherents, and the disciples formed in their school, saw themselves in

possession of the power of regulating belief, of inventing new dogmas, of making gospels, and of arranging them in their own manner,
of forging to themselves titles, and of excommunicating as heretics all those who showed themselves unteachable. It is thus that the
author of the Acts of the Apostles, only speaks, as it were, of his master, of St. Paul, and glances very slightly over the Acts of the
Apostles of the contrary party. The same author (St. Luke) is presumed to have composed his gospel from the notes furnished him by
St. Paul, though he had neither known nor seen Jesus Christ.

Faustus, the Manichean, said on the subject of the gospels, "that they had been composed a long time after the Apostles, by some

obscure individuals, who fearing that faith would not be given to histories of facts with which they must have been unacquainted,
published under the name of the Apostles their own writings, so filled with mistakes and discordant relations and opinions, that we can
find in them neither connection nor agreement with themselves."

A little further on he loudly accuses his adversaries, who had the credit of being orthodox, and says to them, "It is thus that

predecessors have inserted in the writings of our Lord many things which, though they bear his name, do not # at all agree with his
doctrine. That is not surprising since we have often proved that these things have not been written by himself nor by his Apostles, but
that for the greater part they are founded on tales, on vague reports, and collected by I know not who, half Jews, but little agreed
among themselves, who have nevertheless published them under the name of our Lord, and thus have attributed to him their own errors
and deceptions."

Origeo informs us, that Celsus exclaimed against the licence that the Christians of his time, had taken of altering many times

imprudently the originals of their gospels, in order to be able to deny or to retract those things, which embarrassed them.

CHAPTER III. Of the Authority of the Councils, of the

Fathers of the Church, and of Tradition

It is only in the Fathers of the Church, and the Councils, that we can find the proofs of the authenticity of the Christian traditions, and

according to the proofs which remain it appears, that they only approved or rejected opinions, as they found them favourable or
injurious to the interests of the party which they had embraced. Every ecclesiastical writer, and every assembly of Bishops, adopted as
canonical the writings in which they found their own particular dogmas, the others they treated as apocryphal or suppositious. A slight
acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers, will show us that we cannot rely on them for any facts; we shall find that their books are
filled with negligences, tales, impertinences and falsehoods; we shall see them buried in the thickest darkness of superstition and
prejudice. Every word announces their incredulity or their insincerity. St. Clement the Roman, believed the fable of the phoenix reviving
from its ashes, and cites it as a proof of the resurrection.

Papias, who was the master of St. Irenæus, was, in the opinion of Eusebius himself, a man of weak mind, a fabulous author, who

had contributed to lead many men into error, and amongst others St. Irenæus who was his disciple, whom Eusebius regards as a very
credulous man, though he was the first ecclesiastical historian of note. It is not surprising that those who have followed such guides
have fallen into error.

On the other side, we should never finish, were we to enter into a detail of the excesses committed by the Fathers of the Church and

the Councils: their history would only serve to prove their ambition their pride, their infatuation, their seditious spirit, their cheats, their
intrigues, and their cruelties in the persecutions which they excited against their adversaries. It is nevertheless on the probity and on the
knowledge of these great personages that we are called to rely! It is pretended that it is from them that we hold the pure oracles of
truth; must we then take lessons of mildness, of charity, of, holiness, from the writings of some factious individuals, who were
perpetually quarrelling and treating their adversaries with the utmost cruelty, whose works were filled with gall, whose conduct it is
admitted even by their own friends and admirers, was almost always unjust, violent, and criminal? How can it be expected that we
should find any point of unity in the canons and decrees of assemblies agitated by intrigue, discord, and animosity? How can we regard
as saints, and infallible doctors, as persons worthy of our confidence, perverse men, continually involved in disputations with others,
and in contradictions with themselves? What guide can we expect to find in turbulent priests whose ambition, avarice, and intriguing
and persecuting spirit are every where visible? It is only necessary to read ecclesiastical history to be convinced that the picture which
we have drawn of the Councils and Fathers is no ways exaggerated.

On the other hand the writers and Councils on whose authority, Christians are called upon to found their belief, do, in all their

traditions, but blindly follow and copy each other; we see them devoid of the arts of reasoning, of logic, and of criticism; hence their
works are found filled with fables, vulgar errors, and forgeries. Is it possible to believe the traditions of such a man as St. Jerome, who
in his life of St. Anthony, assures us that this holy man had a conference with satyrs with goats feet? Do we not justly doubt the
sincerity of St. Augustine, when he says, "that he had seen a nation composed of men, who had eyes in the middle of their stomachs?"
Are such authors more entitled to credit, than those of Robinson Crusoe, and of the Thousand and One Nights?

Supposing even that at the commencement of Christianity, there had been authentic books in which the actions and the discourses of

Jesus Christ and his Apostles had been faithfully related, should we be justified in supposing that they have been handed down to us
such as they were originally? Prior to the invention of printing, it was doubtless much easier to impose upon the public than it is now,
and notwithstanding, we see that the Press gives currency to innumerable falsehoods.

The spirit of party causes every thing to be adopted that is useful to its own cause. That granted, how easy was it for the heads of

the Church, who were once the only guardians of the holy books, either from pious fraud, or a determined wish to deceive, to insert
falsehoods and articles of faith, in the books entrusted to their care.

The learned Dodwell admits, that the books which compose the New Testament did not appear in public, until at least 100 Years

after Christ. If this fact be certain, how shall we convince ourselves that they existed prior to this time? These books were solely
entrusted to the care of the ecclesiastical gentry, till the third or fourth century, that is to say, to the guardianship of men, whose
conduct was universally regulated by self interest and party spirit, and who possessed neither the probity nor knowledge requisite for
discovering the truth, or of transmitting it in its original purity. Thus each doctor had the power of making such holy books as he
pleased, and when, under Constantine, the Christians saw themselves supported by the Emperor, their chiefs were able to accept, and
cause to be accepted as authentic, and of rejecting as apocryphal, such books as suited their interest, or did not agree with the
prevailing doctrine. But were we even sure of the authenticity of the books, which the church of this day adopts, we are nevertheless,
without any other guarantee of the authority of the scriptures than the books themselves. Is there a history which has the right to prove
itself by itself? Can we rely upon witnesses who give no other proof of what they advance than their own words? Yet the first
Christians have rendered themselves famous by their deceptions, their factions, and their frauds, which are termed pious when they
tend to the advantage of religion. Have not these pious falsehoods been ascribed to the works of Jesus Christ himself and to the
Apostles his successors? Have we not, in their manner, sybilline verses, which are evidently all Christian prophecies, made afterwards,
and often copied word for word into the Old and New Testament? If it had pleased the Fathers at the council of Nice, to regard these
prophecies as divinely inspired, what or who should have prevented them from inserting them into the canon of the Scriptures? And
from that the Christians would not have failed to regard them in the present day, as indubitable proofs of the truth of their religion.

If the Christians at the commencement of Christianity, gave credit to works filled with reveries, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the

Gospel of the Infancy, the Letter of Jesus Christ to Algarus, what confidence can we have in such of their books as remain? Can we
flatter ourselves, with having even these such as they were originally written? How can we at the present time, distinguish the true from
the false, in books, in which enthusiasm, roguery and credulity pervade every page.

Since the gospels themselves fail in the proofs necessary to establish their authenticity, and the truth of the facts which they relate, I

do not see that the epistles of St. Paul, or the Acts of the Apostles, enjoy in this respect a greater advantage. If the first Christians had
no difficulty in attributing works to Jesus, would they have been over scrupulous, in doing the same to his apostles, or in making for
them romantic legends, which length of time has caused to pass for respectable books? If a body of powerful men, had it in their
power to command the credulity of the people, and found it their interest, they would succeed, at the end of a few centuries, in
establishing the belief that the adventures of Don Quixote were perfectly true, and that the prophecies of Nostradamus were
inspirations of the divinity. By means of glossaries, commentaries and allegories, we may find and prove whatever we desire; however

glaring an imposture may be, it may, by the aid of time, deception, and force, pass in the end for a truth, which it is not permitted to
doubt; Determined cheats supported by public authority may cause ignorance, which is always credulous to believe whatever they
choose, especially by persuading it that there is merit in not perceiving inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable absurdities, and
that there is danger in reasoning.

CHAPTER IV. Life of St. Paul, according to the Acts of

the Apostles

I have thus far shewn that nothing was more destitute of proof than the authenticity of the books which contain the life and writings

of St. Paul. I have shewn that the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, were rejected by some Christian sects which
subsisted from the earliest times of the church. It must have been seen that the opinion of the authenticity of these books was founded
solely on traditions, to which it is very difficult to give credit, considering the characters of those by whom these traditions have been
transmitted, it is however upon such suspicious guarantees, that the authority of these works has been pretended to be established; it
will then be necessary to admit them at once and without examination, or else recur to reason in order to examine for ourselves, what
we ought to think concerning them.

To form our ideas of St. Paul, let us then consult only these works, however suspected their origin may appear to us, which contain

the detail of his life; there are no others to which we can have recourse.

The author of the Acts of the Apostles, whoever he be, relates the miraculous conversion of Saul, afterwards called Paul, in the ninth

chapter. We find him already named in the two preceding chapters, first as approving of the death of St. Stephen, the first martyr for
the Christian religion, and next as persecuting and desolating the church. Not contented with tormenting the Christians of Jerusalem, he
furnished himself with letters from the High Priest which authorised him to seize those whom he might find at Damascus; but, while on
the road a miracle caused him to change all his projects; he is suddenly surrounded by a divine light, without seeing any one, he hears
the voice of Jesus of Nazareth, who demands of him the motives of his persecutions. Saul trembling enquired what conduct he ought to
pursue. Jesus tells him, that at Damascus he would be informed of his intentions. Our persecutor on this occasion is struck blind, but his
heart is converted, and sight is miraculously restored to him by a Christian of Damascus named Ananias, who had been, by a particular
revelation informed of his hostile designs against the church, and of the great designs of God, who, of this persecutor, would form a
vessel of election, that is to say the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Soon after this conversion and cure, Saul is baptized and commences preaching Christ in the synagogues, confounding the Jews to

such a degree that they came to the resolution to take away his life. But the new missionary deceived their vigilance by saving himself
during the night by means of a basket, in which he was lowered, and made his escape from Damascus. He returned to Jerusalem
where the disciples of Jesus were thrown into consternation at his appearance; but Barnabas presented him to the Apostles, informed
them of his conversion, and enrolled him to their college. In consequence he preached the Gospel; this conduct soon raised troubles
and persecutions against him on the part of the Jews, who again formed the design of putting him to death. But he found means of
escaping from their fury by the assistance of some disciples who conducted him to Cesarea, whence they afterward sent him to Tarsus.
Barnabas came and joined Saul in the latter city, whence he led him to Antioch. Here Saul and Barnabas remained during a year, they
there made a great number of converts; it was there that the proselytes first took the name of Christians. To warm the zeal of the new
converts, they sent for prophets from Jerusalem, one of these named Agabus predicted a great famine, which determined the disciples
of Antioch to distribute alms to their brethren of Judea; Saul and Barnabas were the bearers of these marks of generosity, and the
Apostles, whom the first faithful made the depositaries of their riches, knew, without doubt, the price of the acquisition that the sect had
made in the person of the new missionary*.

* Acts of Apostles, chap. 12.

CHAPTER V. St. Paul styles himself the Apostle of the

Gentiles—Causes of his Success.

All proves to us that Paul and his associate Barnabas found it much easier to convert the Gentiles than the Jews, who showed

themselves almost always rebels to their lessons. The docility of the first, and indocility of the latter may be traced to very natural
causes; the idolators were destitute of instruction, their priests, content with exacting from them their offerings and sacrifices, never
thought of instructing them in their religion; thus our missionaries encountered few obstacles in persuading them of the truth of the
novelties which they came to announce to them. It was not thus with the Jews, who had a law, to which they were very strongly
attached, since they were convinced that it had been dictated by God himself. In consequence our preach-. ers could not make
themselves listened to, but, in proportion, as the doctrine they preached agreed with the notions with which the Jews were previously
imbued. The Apostles were therefore compelled to reason with the Jews, according to their own system, to shew them that the Christ
whom they announced was the Messiah which they expected from their own prophets; in a word, in preaching the Gospel to the Jews,
the preachers were driven into embarrassing discussions, and perpetually exposed to cavils and contradictions which they had no fear
of on the part of the Gentiles, who received without disputing the novelties which they broached to them, and which besides agreed

well enough with the notions of the pagan mythology, as we have shewn in another work.

On the other side also, the idolators had not the exclusive ideas of religion peculiar to the Jews; they were tolerant, they admitted

every species of worship, and were disposed to pay homage to every God that was proposed to them. The Hebrews were not of this
disposition, they believed themselves alone in the possession of the knowledge of the true God, and rejected with horror strange Gods
and worships.

These reflections are sufficient to explain to us the reason of the great success that the Apostles had in preaching to the Gentiles,

compared with their endeavours amongst the Jews; they likewise show us especially the true motives of Paul's conduct. In fact,
repulsed by the cavils and opposition of the Jews, we see Paul and Barnabas turn themselves to the side of the Pagans, who listened to
them with more attention and declared to the Jews, that God had forsaken them*.

* Acts of Apostles, chap. xiii. ver. 45, &c,

The Gentiles were apparently flattered by the preference; numbers of them adopted the religion announced to them, which did not

hinder the Jews from exciting, against our missionaries, the zeal of the female devotees whose clamour obliged them to quit Antioch.

From thence our two associates, after having shook the dust of their feet against their opposers, repaired to Iconium, where they

again met with opposition on the part of the Jews who even irritated the Gentiles against them, which compelled them to fly to Lystra in
Lycaonia. There according to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul thought it necessary to perform a miracle, well knowing that nothing is
more efficacious than a prodigy in making an impression on the minds of the vulgar.

He then cured a lame man. This miracle convinced the idolators, who took Paul and his comrade for Gods, and under this idea

would have offered them sacrifices. However this wonder did not produce the same effect upon the Jews; these apparently regarded it
as a deception, or some trick of which they were not the dupes. In fact we see that the Jews, who nevertheless yielded to no people in
credulity, so far from being moved by Paul's miracle, that they stoned him as a malefactor and left him for dead. From this unlucky
affair he however extricated himself and returned to Antioch, whence he set out in order to give an account of the success of his
mission, from which it appears that he had no reason for self congratulation, since, if he made a number of recruits for Jesus, he had
succeeded at the expence of much personal ill usage.

Nevertheless the Nazarenes, or Ebionites, i. e. the first of the Jews, who had embraced the doctrine of the Apostles, were

persuaded that the religion of Christ was merely a reformed Judaism. Always attached to the practices of the Mosaic law, they
believed themselves called upon to evince their zeal in its favour; in consequence of which they pretended that the Gentiles, converted
by the Apostles, ought, like themselves, to submit to the rite of circumcision. But Paul and Barnabas strongly opposed this opinion*;
they were well aware that so painful an operation, especially after a certain age, would be very likely to dishearten the heathen whom
they had drawn to their sect. But as the affair appeared very important they referred the decision to the Apostles who remained at
Jerusalem. In consequence Paul and Barnabas, and also the partisans of circumcision, repaired, thither, each with the view of
maintaining their own opinion. The question was argued, and our two missionaries convinced the Apostolic College of the necessity of
freeing the Gentiles from a rite at which they revolted. Thus, according to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, (who appears to have
been devoted to St. Paul's party) it was decided, that the newly converted Gentiles should be exempted from a ceremony which, until
now, had been regarded as highly essential, since it had been ordained by the Divinity himself.

* See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. ver. 5; see also in the
second chapter, of this work what is said of the Nazarenes.

There is reason to believe that the old Apostles did not subscribe without great reluctance to a decision which seemed to annul one

of the capital points of the Mosaic law, and had the appearance of rectifying the ordinances, of the Most High. Jesus himself in his
infancy underwent the ceremony of circumcision; during his life he practised the customs prescribed to his nation; he formerly declared
that he was come, not to destroy, but to accomplish the law of the Jews; and nevertheless we see St. Paul and his adherents, of their
own authority, annul at one blow a ceremony of divine institution, approved of and observed by their master and that for political and
worldly considerations, which saints ought never to regard.

However this may be, by this decision, which Paul extorted from the Apostles, it seemed from that time to give the signal of the

schism, which in the end totally separated the Jews from the Christians. Nevertheless we shall soon see Paul, who on this occasion
took in hand the cause of the Gentiles, prepare (resuming the old errors) and circumcise a disciple himself. So true it is, that the
greatest saints are not always consistent in their opinions, nor uniform in their conduct.

The Apostles having shewn so much indulgence in the article of the circumcision of the Gentiles, were, however desirous of giving a

kind of satisfaction to the partisans of Judaism; with this view they prohibited the new converts from worshipping idols, from giving
themselves up to fornication; and ordered them to abstain from things strangled and from the blood of animals. By these means they
sought to conciliate every one; the Gentiles were not circumcised, and submitted themselves, in part, to the ordinances of the Jews,
who thus saw a deference always paid to the law of their fathers, to which they were ever strongly attached *.

* See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. All seems to prove that
the Apostles soon repented of the weakness they had been
guilty of in ceding to St. Paul, for we find he formed a
separate party, who preached the Gospel in his own manner,
that is to say, the Gospel of the uncircumcision.

Furnished with this decision of the council of Jerusalem, in which the Apostles declare themselves authorised by the Holy Spirit, Paul

and Barnabas returned to Antioch, whence they were desirous of visiting the towns where they had already preached; but a contest
respecting the choice of an associate of their labours, made a breach between our two missionaries and caused a separation between
them. Barnabas accompanied by Mark embarked for the Isle of Cyprus, whilst Paul with Silas, his new companion, traversed Syria
and Cilicia to confirm in the faith those who had been recently converted *.

* It ought here to be remarked, that there exists yet a
Gospel of the Nazarenes, the honour of which has been
decreed to St. Barnabas, and in which Paul is roughly
handled. In fact this Apostle preached, as we have shewn,
besides uncircumcision, a doctrine very different from that
of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, or first Christians, who,
according to St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, and Eusebius,
regarded Jesus merely as a man, the son of Joseph and Mary,
and who was called the Son of God, only on account of his
virtues. This may enable us to guess at the cause of Paul's
quarrel with Barnabas, whose Gospel insinuates that Paul was
in error in teaching that Jesus was God.

CHAPTER VI. Paul preaches in Asia Minor,

Macedonia, and Greece

Upon his arrival at Lystra, St. Paul, notwithstanding the indulgence of the Council of Jerusalem, thought it good policy to circumcise

a proselyte named Timothy, who was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother. The Acts of the Apostles inform us of the motive
of this circumcision (chap. xvi. ver. 3) it being done "because of the Jews which were in those quarters."

Our two Missionaries now travelled over several provinces of Asia Minor, such as Phrygia and Galatia, and yet we find that the

Holy Ghost forbade them to announce the word of God in Asia. We may indeed suppose, that in this passage, the "Holy Ghost" is only
intended to indicate that our missionaries themselves perceived, that it would be dangerous for them to preach their doctrine; for in the
Holy Scriptures the persons of whom it speaks are always supposed to act from divine impulse.

Paul had a vision, which persuaded him to go to Macedonia. Being arrived at Phillippi, he preached to the women with such

success, that he had the happiness of converting a dealer in purple, named Lydia, who, from gratitude, invited them pressingly to lodge
in her house. They were well accommodated no doubt, since devotees take great care of their directors; but our holy personages had
the misfortune to perform a miracle which deranged all their affairs. Paul cast out the evil spirit from a damsel, who having a spirit of
divination, brought great profit to her masters by soothsaying. The cure, or perhaps conversion, of this slave, displeased her masters,
they carried their complaint to the magistrates; the people took a part against our preachers, who were beaten with rods and then sent
to prison. An earthquake retrieved their affairs, they gained over the gaoler whom they converted to the faith. In the meantime the
magistrates sent him an order to release our prisoners. But Paul, bearing in mind the scourging they had received, required that the
magistrates should come in person and release them, asserting that they were Roman citizens: at these words the magistrates were
intimidated, and came with apologies to set them free, begging them to leave their city, which request they complied with, after having
been to console Lydia the devout, and the brethren, who according to appearances did not suffer them to depart empty-handed. This
bad success did not discourage our missionaries who were aware doubtless, that they were inconveniences attached to their
profession. They now went to Thessalonica, where Paul had the good luck to make some proselytes both among Jews and Gentiles;
he converted especially, some ladies of quality; but the hardened Jews were very much irritated at his successes; they endeavoured to
apprehend Paul and Silas, but not being able to find them, they dragged Jason, their host, and some of the brethren, before the
magistrates, accusing them of treason, and of acknowledging another king besides Cæsar.

This uproar obliged our missionaries to decamp during the night from Thessalonica, and take the road to Berea, where they were

well received by the Jews, since Paul succeeded in convincing them that the Gospel which he announced was clearly predicted in their
own Scriptures: there is reason to believe that this was effected by the aid of mystical, cabalistical, and allegorical senses, of which he
so well knew the use, in finding in the Old Testament sufficient to establish whatever he was desirous of proving.

He gained in this city a great number of recruits from amongst the Greek females of quality, women, according to St. Jerome are

best fitted to propagate a sect; their levity makes them easily caught by novelties; their ignorance renders them credulous; their
talkativeness spreads the opinions with which they are imbued; and, in short, their obstinacy strongly attaches them to the way of
thinking they have once adopted. In a word we see, that in all times the Christian religion has been under the greatest obligations to
women; it is to them that innovators ought especially to address themselves when they have opinions to establish, it is by their aid that
fanatics and devout impostors succeed in giving importance to their doctrine, and sow the seeds of discord in society. It appears that in
the time of Paul, women had the right of speaking or of prophesying in the church, of this, they have since been deprived, and they are
only allowed the privilege of bawling in public, in favour of the systems of their holy directors, whom they always believe infallible,
without so much as knowing the state of the question. The Quakers are now the only sect which permits women to preach *.

* There appears some little ambiguity in this paragraph,
since if the levity of women renders them so easily
susceptible to the embracing new opinions, the obstinacy
with which they are charged in adhering to old ones, would
seem to neutralize the opposite propensity, and like the
infinite attributes of Justice and Mercy in the Christians'
God, they would annihilate each other. The fact is, that the
ignorant of either sex, are always the most credulous, and
their opinions, when imbibed, are seldom to be dignified
with any other term than prejudice. Of the great influence
of woman in society, no one can doubt, and it is the duty of
all who think, and who desire a reformation of the present

semi-barbarous state of society, to endeavour to inform and
enlighten the female mind; it belongs to man to war against
old systems, and errors rendered sacred by their antiquity,
and perhaps to lay down some few el...